Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Facts reviewed: On grievance dated 7/13/17 offender claims that the May/June 2017 issue of MIM Distributors, No. 56 was banned but feels that he should be allowed to have it since he is interested in all radical political movements.

Counselor Dennis responded "According to the Publication Review Committee MIM Distributors May/June 2017 No. 56 is on the banned list."

Grievance Officer finds that according to the PRC Chairperson the publicaiton was reviewed and determined to be on the banne dlist. Offenders' political beliefs are not a factor in PRC determinations. Offender received and signed a Publication Review Determination and Course of Action DOC0212 form on 7/13/17. It appears that proper protocol was followed.

Recommendation: Based upon a total review of all available information it is the recomendation of this Grievance Officer that this offender's grievance be DENIED due to offender's publicaiton being on the banned list.

Grievance officer's name: David Mansfield, CCII

Chief Administrator Officer's Response 7/21/2017:
"I Concur"

September 6, 2017

Illinois DOC
Office of the Director
PO Box 19277
Springfield, IL 62794-9277

Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue 56


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of a notice of censorship from XX concerning the issue of Under Lock Key (ULK), issue 56. We are the distributors of ULK and did not receive notice of the censorship of this issue at any time.

Due process requires adequate notice of the reasons for censorship. Instructive is the District Court’s reasoning set forth in Prison Legal News v. Jones, “Procunier demands that the publisher "be given a reasonable opportunity to protest" the censorship. Id. at 418. For an opportunity to be reasonable, the publisher must know of the grounds upon which the publication has been censored. See Henry J. Friendly, "Some Kind of Hearing", 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1267, 1280 (1975) (explaining that it is "fundamental" to due process that "notice be given . . . that . . . clearly inform[s] the individual of the proposed action and the grounds for it"). This knowledge component of due process does not turn on whether the publication is the first copy or a subsequent copy. What matters is the basis for censorship. If a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with [the publisher or distributor], due process requires that [the publisher or distributor] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015).

Please provide an original reason for censorship of issue 56 of ULK, which clearly states the objectionable material and reason for censorship within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter.

Illinois Administrative Code title 20, section 525.140(h) requires written notification to the sender when mail is censored or denied.
In the alternative, we request the decision to censor issue 56 be vacated and the issue be delivered to all prisoners to whom it was addressed.

You may respond to the address listed.


Sincerely,
MIM Distributors

Notification of publication denial because publication:

Be otherwise detrimental to security, good order, rehabilitation, or discipline or itm ight facilitate criminal activity or be detrimental to mental health.

Article drugs in prison, unity amongst prisoners.

Promotes leadership and organization detrimental to safety and security of the facility.

Signed: C. Hunter